I didn’t respond over the past week, as I wanted to devote the end of Ramadan to Allah and not to online arguments; I will only say in response to the slanderous arguments above that I don’t promote government interference in Islamic scholarship, neither in the ‘Muslim’ countries nor in the West. (Also it’s somewhat ridiculous to keep banging on about me supporting Jordan, when I explicitly wrote in the above comment he responded to:

Quite a few ‘Muslim country’ regimes exist now only due to American and British financial and military support – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and arguably Pakistan… and one might point out that they’re all doing far worse things, such as torture, murder, etc on behalf of the American and British regimes (there was a suggestion back in 2004 from Saudi Arabia that Saudi, Jordan and the UAE would take all the prisoners from Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and other CIA ‘black sites’ – I gather under the logic that if anyone should get their hands bloody from torturing Arabs and Muslims, it should be Arabs and Muslims doing the torturing).

I should also note I don’t defend the interference of the governments of Turkey, Egypt, Morocco or Indonesia in the religious affairs of the ulema.

A good statement of my feelings is actually in the initial post by IMuslim, so take this as a summation:

I believe that the government engaging with the Muslim community is a good idea, even if they do think our kids need citizenship lessons – whatever that means.

However, what I find highly erroneous is the government’s decision to meddle with Islam itself, by influencing both how it is taught and interpreted. Clearly, their motivation is not to bring Muslims closer to God, or even to justice – it’s all in the name of ‘counter-terrorism’.

Well, newsflash, Westminster: we are no strangers to politicians and rulers interfering with our belief system for their own personal gains – Muslim governments have been doing it in vain for centuries. Certainly, non-Muslim interference is even less tolerable. Please realise that separation of Church and State goes both ways, and stick to secular politics.

+1

The reason I criticise the RMW and the shuyookh who participate is because that there are strings attached even if you are unwilling to acknowledge this point. The goal of the RMW is to promote a “moderate Islaam”. Do you honestly think that the British government has the best interests of Muslims at mind? It’s one thing to take money for example, for health care from the British government. It’s a whole other equation to take money to promote a “moderate Islaam” to suit the desires of the British government. If as you say, that these shuyookh aren’t compromised or that there are no strings attached, are they willing to condemn the British role in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq or it’s sponsoring of groups like the Quillam Foundation? If these shuyookh are willing to do this, then they might be excused, but I haven’t seen this from them.

Your third paragraph is not relevant to our discussion and there are many problems in the Arab world and they should be addressed, but not by parroting the view of MEMRI, which demands that Arabs and Muslims engage in extreme self-criticism and self-flagellation and total deference to their Neo-con agenda, when the same people(Neo-cons, right-wingers, etc)who are demanding this are unwilling to do this themselves and they are well-known for squelching opposition to their agenda. An example of this double standard is mentioned here, http://www.henrymakow.com/000642.html, by a Jewish writer. I didn’t say taking money from governments make all of one’s actions questionable, but taking money specifically when a government has a specific agenda, such as the British government which trying to foster a “moderate” Islaam” under the guise of groups such as the RMW and the Quillam Foundation.

As for the events you mentioned in your last paragraph, I will address the fatwa of Shaykh al-Albani. This fatwa has long been used by many Sufis in their anti-Salafi propganda and their has been alot of controversy surrounding it and Shaykh Mashoor Salman(one of Albani’s students) has a written a defense of Albani. I believe that the fatwa was wrong but it was just an opinion and it was never implemented. If the Sufis who cite this fatwa are really sincere and care about the Palestinian cause, how come they are totally silent on the Jordanian regime(which is beloved by many Sufis) whose treacherous actions(not just a fatwa) have played a large part in helping and strengthening the Zionist regime from the time of King Abdullah I, whose treachery and colloboration with the Zionists played a large part in the establishment of the Zionist entity in Palestine right up to this day. This selective and sectarian criticism exposes the utter insincerity and brazen hypocrisy of these Sufis who cite this fatwa. I was also say in defense of Albani, that he went to fight the Zionists when they were trying to take over Palestine and that he was no court scholar as he was jailed in Syria because some Sufis incited government against him, under house arrest in Jordan and expelled from Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War because of his opposition to using American troops. I already mentioned to you that many Salafi shuyookh(inside and outside of Saudi) have and still oppose Saudi foreign policy and they have criticised the Salafi shuyookh who have defended the Saudi regime. Here(in Arabic), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i5rBJlslms, is an example of Shaykh al-Albani strongly condemning the Saudi goverment’s decision to use the assistance of American troops in the first Gulf War and I can bring you many more examples like this. Why just focus on the treachery of the Saudi government when there are many treacherous governments in the Muslim world, including governments which are officially Sufi and “traditional” such as Morocco, Jordan, Dubai(where Sufi shuyookh like al-Jifri are silent on the pro-American foreign policy). etc.

iMuslim, sometimes harshness is called for.

Abdullah, many of Dawud’s criticisms were sectarian and so I replied in kind. As for sectarian partisanship and how it applies to this discussion, I can say, whatever the faults of the Salafis in the West, they haven’t stooped to the behaviour of some Sufis who have exploited the political climate in the West to incite against the “Wahabis” in the media., though I have no doubt that the majority of Sufis and “traditionals” condemn this behaviour.

As you say, RMW is doing a good job in their efforts to aid the British Muslim community. So then the question for the masses becomes: are you simply going to reject them out of suspicion of their patrons? And that’s immediately where the split comes.

One group will say “yes”, and rightly so, because of warnings in the Qur’an and Sunnah about taking non-Muslims as allies and benefactors, for all the reasons we have already discussed: it jeopardises the purity of the message.

The second group will say “no”, and I think rightly so, because in the end, suspicion is haram in many cases, and we must judge people on their fruits, not just hearsay.

And that’s when the labels are brought out: ‘Sufis’, ‘Salafis’, ‘Wahabbis’, ‘Moderates’, ‘Progressives’, ‘Radicals’, ‘Extremists’… and so on. If you’re not with us, you’re against us: but who is “us”?

So there you have it: the poison in the well is not necessarily the corruption of dawah, as alhamdulillah, Allah has promised to preserve this deen, so if ever the da’ees dare pollute the message, He will replace them with better. Rather, it is the division of the community, through warranted suspicion; and hasn’t “divide and conquer” always been one of the best political and military stratagems to date?

this should not be turned into another round of sectarian partisanship, but rather serve as a discussion for the realization that:

1. ANY funding of Muslim groups by a state (be it Muslim/Non-Muslim) is something that
a. creates a cycle of dependency — you skew your actions to ensure funding
b. politically compromises you — you become aware of red lines that you cannot and should not cross
so as to not jeapordize funding. Your message becomes compromised.

2. As far as some masjids and groups defending taking money from Saudi Arabia vs. the employers/managers of the Saudis — the UK — BOTH are wrong. Neither state is functioning according to Islam and both have and continue to exercise hostility to Muslims when Islam runs counter to their political and commercial interests.

3. As for RMW:

a. ” The Radical Middle Way initiative has received funding totalling £350,000, of which £250,000 was provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and £100,000 by Home Office.”

source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061204/text/61204w0034.htm

An open attempt at blackmail of the RMW was done by none other than one of the Quilliam Munafiqs who supported the Israeli bombardment of Gaza (Muslims should condemn Hamas NOT Israel) and who advocates removing hijab:

Here he is openly urging the cutting of funding for RMW for associating with other groups which the govt. doesn’t like:

“The RMW admits to being ‘primarily funded’ by at least two separate government departments and is then supporting a group who would rather replace our liberal democracy with a puritanical Islamist theocracy? That doesn’t strike me as the most effective way to spend taxpayer’s money.”

source: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/07/the-radical-middle-way-attacks-quilliam-endorses-hizb-ut-tahrir/

a. Shiraz should know having fleeced 1 Million pounds from British taxpayers for Quilliam Foundation with ZERO achievements to date.
b. Muslim institutions and “scholars” if they claim to represent and speak for the community should be funded by local Muslims IN the community.
c. You cannot condemn “petrodollar wahabbis” for being promoted by the Saudi govt. while you in turn are being promoted and funded by the EMPLOYERS of these same Saudis — the UK and US.
d. You cannot oppose controversial political legislation in regards to Muslims/Islam in the UK and still maintain your independence while doing so:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/17/counterterrorism-strategy-muslims

because the govt. can and will cut your funding (as Shiraz is openly advocating them to do so) if you show any hesitation in supporting them. There are numerous ayats in the Quran which describe how kuffar will never accept Muslims even if they compromise their deen, it behooves one engaged in taking funds from others to reflect upon this.

really though, I must have touched a nerve – you spare all of one sentence to acknowledge that the state of Saudi Arabia was established with the help of the British and maintained by the Americans, which would seem to imply (by your reasoning, vis Habib Ali al-Jifri) that anyone who accepted the support of that government should be judged by association.

as for the al-Rasheeds and others, while I can understand the desire to loosen Ottoman rule, I think that the Arab nations as a whole have not improved themselves under their believed ‘independence’ – as one Arab once told me about the Ottomans: “they took the wealth of our lands, to build mosques and monuments for themselves while they kept our people poor and ignorant” – does that description remind you of anyone as much as the tyrants who currently rule the Arab countries, and what great efforts are Arab muslims making to remedy the ignorance and poverty that mire their lands?

as for RMW, I do believe they should have made their funding clear from the beginning, but don’t believe their values are compromised, as I’ve already argued above. I’ve made my own personal arguments about funding directly to the organizers of RMW and Shahid Malik of the FCO, but also recognize that the muslim community in Britain neither could (help with visas) nor is likely to (preferring prestige projects like domes and minarets) fund anything like the RMW.

However, if one compares it to anything like the al-Haramain or other Saudi projects, RMW pales into insignificance – and if one says that taking money from a government involved in haram makes all one’s actions questionable, wouldn’t that also apply to any scholar who took from the wealth of the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Jordanians? (or any other ‘Muslim/Islamic country’ for that matter)

as for citing a scholar/fatwa that was altered upon decree from Washington, London and Tel Aviv: Gulf War I & 2, the fatwa that all Palestine was ‘dar al-harb’ and Palestinians had to make hijra (to where?)… just as a start

1. RAND, Civil Democratic Islam, Partners, Resources, & Strategies

2. State sponsored Sufism

3. Hearts, Minds, & Dollars: America is spending millions to change the very face of Islam

Whether political/media whores in the community can somehow make a living and justify taking this money in the name of “dawah” is a wholly different subject.

I mean, the logic is sound, no? Or is it fair to question a group like RMW, whose members I know personally, and haven’t gotten rich off gov’t funding (AbdurRahman Malik and Fareena Alam live in council housing blocks in East London, off the infamous ‘Brick Lane’) and all the scholars who’ve participated are known for their criticism of Western foreign policy – whereas one can easily point to all the scholars from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt who have openly changed their statements and fatwas based on decrees from Washington, London and Tel Aviv…